and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Hide Tags

A recent report on an environmental improvement program was [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 May 2009, 23:04

3

This post receivedKUDOS

10

This post wasBOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

61%(01:26) correct 39%(01:38) wrong based on 719 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

A recent report on an environmental improvement program was criticized for focusing solely on pragmatic solutions to the large number of significant problems that plague the program instead of seriously trying to produce a coherent vision for the future of the program. In response the report’s authors granted that the critics had raised a valid point but explained that, to do anything at all, the program needed continued government funding, and that to get such funding the program first needed to regain a reputation for competence.

1.The basic position taken by the report’s authors on the criticism leveled against the report is that(A) addressing the critics’ concern now would be premature(B) the critics’ motives are self-serving(C) the notion of a coherent vision would be inappropriate to a program of the sort at issue(D) the authors of the report are more knowledgeable than its critics(E) giving the report a single focus is less desirable than the critics claim

2. Which one of the following, if true, would best serve the critics of the report in their attempt to undermine the position taken by the report’s authors?(A) The government does not actually provide a full l00 percent of the program’s funding.(B) The program will continue to have numerous serious problems precisely because it lacks a coherent vision for its future.(C) The program had a coherent vision at its inception, but that vision has proved impossible to sustain.(D) The government has threatened to cut off funding for the program but has not acted yet on this threat.(E) The program has acquired a worse reputation for incompetence than it deserves.

Show Tags

19 May 2009, 01:18

IMO A, B

A recent report on an environmental improvement program was criticized for focusing solely on pragmatic solutions to the large number of significant problems that plague the program instead of seriously trying to produce a coherent vision for the future of the program. In response the report’s authors granted that the critics had raised a valid point but explained that, to do anything at all, the program needed continued government funding, and that to get such funding the program first needed to regain a reputation for competence.

1.The basic position taken by the report’s authors on the criticism leveled against the report is that(A) addressing the critics’ concern now would be premature --> best. (use POE)(B) the critics’ motives are self-serving -->no info(C) the notion of a coherent vision would be inappropriate to a program of the sort at issue -->the reports' author does not deny the valid point of the notion of coherent vision(D) the authors of the report are more knowledgeable than its critics --> ridiculous(E) giving the report a single focus is less desirable than the critics claim -->counter fact

2. Which one of the following, if true, would best serve the critics of the report in their attempt to undermine the position taken by the report’s authors?(A) The government does not actually provide a full l00 percent of the program’s funding -->out of scope(B) The program will continue to have numerous serious problems precisely because it lacks a coherent vision for its future -->strengthen(C) The program had a coherent vision at its inception, but that vision has proved impossible to sustain -->weaken(D) The government has threatened to cut off funding for the program but has not acted yet on this threat -->weaken(E) The program has acquired a worse reputation for incompetence than it deserves -->weaken

Show Tags

19 May 2009, 03:11

IMO A, D...

in the second question, D is more attractive than B as it directly attacks the authors claim that its pragmatic solutions are needed for government funding. and if Govt funding is threatened, then the authors claim is weakened.

Show Tags

19 Mar 2010, 09:31

sondenso wrote:

A recent report on an environmental improvement program was criticized for focusing solely on pragmatic solutions to the large number of significant problems that plague the program instead of seriously trying to produce a coherent vision for the future of the program. In response the report’s authors granted that the critics had raised a valid point but explained that, to do anything at all, the program needed continued government funding, and that to get such funding the program first needed to regain a reputation for competence.1.The basic position taken by the report’s authors on the criticism leveled against the report is that(A) addressing the critics’ concern now would be premature(B) the critics’ motives are self-serving(C) the notion of a coherent vision would be inappropriate to a program of the sort at issue(D) the authors of the report are more knowledgeable than its critics(E) giving the report a single focus is less desirable than the critics claim

Show Tags

23 Mar 2010, 19:12

5

This post receivedKUDOS

1

This post wasBOOKMARKED

Hey All,

Even though a lot of agreement on this one in terms of the answer, no one seems to have really gone all out to explain what's going on through technique. Because at least one person had questions, I figured I'd take them on. Let's do it!

A recent report on an environmental improvement program was criticized for focusing solely on pragmatic solutions to the large number of significant problems that plague the program instead of seriously trying to produce a coherent vision for the future of the program. In response the report’s authors granted that the critics had raised a valid point but explained that, to do anything at all, the program needed continued government funding, and that to get such funding the program first needed to regain a reputation for competence.

Criticism: Report criticized for focusing on fix problems, not thinking of future.Response: To move forward, need funding, and funding comes with competence.

1.The basic position taken by the report’s authors on the criticism leveled against the report is that(A) addressing the critics’ concern now would be prematureANSWER: This argument is about the future, and the authors are focusing on the present. This is correct, because they're arguing that they need to get funding (in the present) before worrying about the future).

(B) the critics’ motives are self-servingPROBLEM: No information is given on the motives of the critics.

(C) the notion of a coherent vision would be inappropriate to a program of the sort at issuePROBLEM: We can't ignore that "critics raised a valid point". They agree about the vision, but only say they can't worry about it unless they continue to get funding.

(D) the authors of the report are more knowledgeable than its criticsPROBLEM: Whether or not this is true, the authors do not mention that they have any kind of special knowledge.

(E) giving the report a single focus is less desirable than the critics claimPROBLEM: Again, they don't disagree with the critics, except to say that they need to worry about something else first.

2. Which one of the following, if true, would best serve the critics of the report in their attempt to undermine the position taken by the report’s authors?

(A) The government does not actually provide a full l00 percent of the program’s funding.PROBLEM: Doesn't have to be a full 100%. Now, if it only provided 1%, that would be a different issue.

(B) The program will continue to have numerous serious problems precisely because it lacks a coherent vision for its future.ANSWER: This means that they will never be seen as competent until they worry about the future, so the authors argument doesn't make any sense.

(C) The program had a coherent vision at its inception, but that vision has proved impossible to sustain.PROBLEM: This wouldn't help at all. In fact, it might even hurt the argument to say that the vision is impossible to sustain (because then why would it be worth worrying about?).

(D) The government has threatened to cut off funding for the program but has not acted yet on this threat.PROBLEM: Again, this would probably HELP the author's argument, because their worries about government funding in the present are critical.

(E) The program has acquired a worse reputation for incompetence than it deserves.PROBLEM: This doesn't help anyone, because even if the program isn't as bad as it sounds, it still needs funding, and it still needs vision.

Re: A recent report on an environmental improvement program was [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 Mar 2013, 13:09

A and B are correct. Here my 2 cents.

For the 1st question:Premise: Critics say the program focuses only on pragmatic solutions and it doesn't have coherent vision for the future of program.Premise: Author: to get government funding, the program has to regain reputation first. Assumption is: reputation will be sustained in the long term. (if the reputation couldn't be sustained, the government won't finance the program.). That's the key assumption.Author's conclusion: critics raised a valid point, but to do anything.

The author means the critics' point is valid but premature to conclude that the program has no coherent vision. --> A

For the 2nd question:To break the author's logic, critics must show the flaw of author's assumption. B clearly supports critics by showing that the program's reputation couldn't be sustained in the long term. Hence, B is correct.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Re: A recent report on an environmental improvement program was [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Nov 2014, 01:06

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Re: A recent report on an environmental improvement program was [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 Apr 2016, 18:27

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.